June 2026
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam showed that nutrition questions can look straightforward, but still require careful wording.
Students were asked to compare the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating with the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating, and then describe how an environmental challenge could affect the ability to bring about nutritional change.
These questions were not testing whether students generally understood that nutrition matters.
They were testing whether students could compare food selection models accurately, use culturally respectful language, identify environmental influences, and describe specific nutritional or dietary changes.
The report showed that many students lost marks when their answers were too broad.
They wrote about “healthy eating” without naming a nutrient or food type.
They described one food guide without comparing it to the other.
They referred to food quantities rather than proportions.
They identified an environmental challenge but did not explain how it changed dietary intake.
They used imprecise or culturally inappropriate abbreviations.
In nutrition questions, the detail matters.
The food guides had to be compared directly
Question 2a asked students to outline one similarity and one difference between the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating and the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating.
The report made clear that students needed to compare the two guides.
For similarities, students could write that both guides visually represent the five food groups, both show the recommended proportions of the five food groups, or both promote drinking water.
For differences, students needed to make the comparison explicit.
A strong answer could write:
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating includes cultural foods such as kangaroo, damper and bush fruits, whereas the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating uses more generic food examples.
This answer works because it clearly identifies both guides and explains how they differ.
A weaker answer would say:
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide includes kangaroo.
That may be true, but it does not fully show the difference between the two guides.
Comparison requires two sides.
“Both guides” was enough for similarities, but not for differences
The report noted that when outlining similarities, it was acceptable to write “both guides” or “both”.
For example:
Both guides contain a visual representation of the five food groups.
This is acceptable because a similarity applies equally to both.
Differences are different.
A difference must show contrast. Students needed to write what one guide includes and what the other does not, or how one guide is presented compared with the other.
For example:
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating uses muted or earthy tones, whereas the Australian Guide to Healthy Eating uses blue and green tones.
The contrast is what earns the mark.
Students should use wording such as whereas, while, compared with or unlike when outlining differences.
The guides show proportions, not exact amounts
The report identified a common issue: some students stated that both guides indicate the amount of food that should be consumed from each food group.
This was not accurate.
The guides show the proportion of each food group that should make up the overall diet. They do not provide exact quantities for every individual.
This distinction matters because Health and Human Development rewards correct terminology.
A strong response would say:
Both guides visually represent the proportion of the five food groups that should make up the overall diet.
This is more accurate than saying:
Both guides show how much food to eat.
The second version is too loose.
Food selection models guide dietary patterns, but students need to describe their function correctly.
Cultural relevance was an important difference
One of the clearest differences between the guides was cultural relevance.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Guide to Healthy Eating includes culturally significant foods such as kangaroo, damper, bush fruits and other Indigenous food examples. The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating is more general and does not include these specific cultural foods in the same way.
This difference matters because culturally relevant health promotion can increase engagement, recognition and respect.
A food guide that reflects Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures may be more meaningful for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples because it recognises cultural food practices and identity.
Students should avoid treating cultural food examples as random details.
They are part of how the guide is tailored to the population.
Respectful language mattered
The report noted that abbreviating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander is considered culturally inappropriate as best practice. While students were not penalised where general VCAA abbreviation conventions were followed, the report advised students to avoid abbreviating this term.
This is important for future students.
Write Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in full.
This shows respect and aligns with the subject’s emphasis on equity, inclusion and culturally appropriate practice.
Health and Human Development often assesses topics connected to culture, identity, community and social justice. The language students use should reflect that.
Environmental challenges needed to be identified clearly
Question 2b asked students to identify and describe how one environmental challenge affects the ability to bring about nutritional change.
The report listed several possible environmental challenges, including:
housing environment
geographic location
workplace or work environment
access to physical resources
transport
climate
weather
infrastructure or built environment
Students needed to name one of these clearly and then explain how it affected nutritional change.
A response should not simply say:
The environment affects food choices.
That is too broad.
A strong response identifies the challenge and shows the mechanism.
For example:
Limited access to transport may make it difficult for people to travel to supermarkets that sell fresh fruit, vegetables and wholegrain foods. As a result, they may rely more on nearby fast-food outlets or convenience stores, increasing consumption of foods high in saturated fat, salt and sugar.
This answer identifies the environmental challenge and links it to a specific dietary change.
“Healthy eating” was too vague
The report’s most important nutrition lesson was that students needed to refer to a specific nutritional or dietary change.
A common issue was writing that an environmental challenge reduced “healthy eating”.
That was not specific enough.
Students needed to refer to changes such as:
increased consumption of foods high in sugar
increased consumption of foods high in salt
increased consumption of foods high in saturated fat
increased consumption of processed foods
increased consumption of energy-dense foods
decreased consumption of fruit and vegetables
decreased consumption of foods high in fibre
decreased intake of fresh produce
greater reliance on takeaway meals or convenience foods
This specificity matters because the question asked about nutritional change.
“Healthy eating” is a broad judgement. The exam required concrete dietary language.
Housing environment could affect food preparation
One strong example from the report was the housing environment.
A person may not have adequate facilities to prepare and cook nutritious foods. They may lack an oven, stove, fridge, safe storage space or clean cooking area. This can make it difficult to prepare meals using fresh produce, lean proteins, vegetables or wholegrain foods.
As a result, they may rely on takeaway foods or microwavable meals, which are often higher in saturated fat, salt and sugar.
This is a strong answer because it gives a full chain:
housing environment → limited cooking facilities → reliance on convenience foods → increased saturated fat, salt and sugar intake.
That is the level of detail students should aim for.
Geographic location could limit food access
Geographic location is another strong environmental challenge.
People living in rural or remote areas may have limited access to supermarkets, fresh produce or affordable food outlets. Food may also be more expensive due to transport costs and supply chain issues.
This can reduce consumption of fruit, vegetables and fresh foods, while increasing reliance on processed or packaged foods that have a longer shelf life and may be higher in salt, sugar or saturated fat.
A strong response could write:
Living in a remote area may reduce access to supermarkets that sell affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. This may make it harder to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and may increase reliance on processed foods high in salt and saturated fat.
This links location to a specific dietary outcome.
Transport could influence nutritional change
Transport is another environmental factor that can affect food choice.
If a person does not have access to a car or reliable public transport, they may be unable to travel to supermarkets or markets that offer healthier and more affordable food options. They may instead rely on local takeaway shops, petrol stations, convenience stores or school canteens.
This could lead to increased intake of energy-dense foods, sugary drinks, processed snacks or foods high in saturated fat and salt.
Transport is not a nutrition factor by itself.
It becomes relevant because it affects access to particular foods.
Climate and weather could affect food availability
Climate and weather can also influence nutritional change.
Extreme weather events such as floods, droughts or heatwaves can damage crops, disrupt food supply, reduce availability of fresh produce and increase food prices. High temperatures may also reduce the storage life of food if refrigeration is limited.
This can make it harder for people to increase consumption of fruit and vegetables or fresh foods. It may increase reliance on packaged foods that last longer but are often higher in salt, sugar or saturated fat.
This example works well because it connects environmental conditions to food availability and dietary intake.
Workplaces and schools could shape dietary choices
The workplace or school environment can also affect nutritional change.
If a workplace or school canteen mostly sells fried foods, sugary drinks or processed snacks, individuals may find it harder to reduce intake of saturated fat, added sugar and salt. If healthy options such as fruit, salads, wholegrain sandwiches or water are available and affordable, positive nutritional change becomes easier.
This example is useful because it shows that nutrition is shaped by the built and social environment, not just individual willpower.
A student could write:
A school canteen that sells mostly energy-dense foods such as chips, pastries and sugary drinks may make it difficult for students to reduce sugar and saturated fat intake, as these foods are more accessible during the school day than fruit, vegetables or wholegrain options.
This is specific and applied.
Infrastructure affected access to food
Infrastructure and the built environment could also shape nutrition.
Areas without supermarkets, fresh food markets, safe roads, refrigeration systems or reliable electricity may struggle to provide consistent access to nutritious foods. Poor infrastructure may also increase transport time, food spoilage and cost.
This can reduce access to fresh produce and increase reliance on processed foods with a longer shelf life.
A strong response links infrastructure to food systems, then to dietary change.
For example:
Poor road infrastructure may make it harder for fresh produce to be transported to remote communities, reducing the availability of fruit and vegetables and making it more difficult to increase fibre and micronutrient intake.
This answer moves beyond generic “access” language.
It explains the pathway.
Students needed to describe the barrier to change
The question asked how an environmental challenge affects the ability to bring about nutritional change.
This means students needed to focus on change.
For example, a person may want to reduce salt intake, increase fruit and vegetable intake, or reduce consumption of takeaway foods. The environmental challenge may make that change difficult.
A strong response should therefore include language such as:
making it harder to increase…
reducing the ability to decrease…
limiting access to…
increasing reliance on…
making positive nutritional change more difficult by…
This directly addresses the question.
A response that only describes current poor diet may not fully explain why change is difficult.
Nutrition responses needed cause-and-effect chains
The best answers used chains.
For example:
Limited cooking facilities in the housing environment may prevent individuals from preparing meals using fresh vegetables, lean meats and wholegrain foods. This may increase reliance on takeaway or microwavable meals, which are often high in saturated fat, salt and sugar, making it harder to reduce intake of these nutrients and bring about positive nutritional change.
This is strong because it connects every part of the question.
Environmental challenge.
Food preparation.
Dietary consequence.
Specific nutrients.
Nutritional change.
This structure is far more effective than writing isolated facts.
Students should avoid moralising food choices
Health and Human Development answers should avoid moralising language about food choices.
The focus should be on access, availability, affordability, facilities, environment and nutritional consequences.
Rather than writing:
People eat badly because they do not care about health.
A stronger response would write:
Limited access to affordable fresh produce may increase reliance on cheaper processed foods, which can be higher in salt, saturated fat and sugar.
This is more respectful and more aligned with the subject.
It recognises that nutrition is shaped by structural and environmental conditions, not only individual behaviour.
Why nutrition marks were lost
Marks were likely lost when students:
- described only one food guide instead of comparing both
- stated a difference without using comparative language
- wrote that the guides show exact amounts rather than proportions
- used culturally inappropriate abbreviations
- identified an environmental challenge but did not explain its effect
- wrote vaguely about “healthy eating”
- did not name specific nutrients or food types
- did not explain why nutritional change was difficult
- gave a personal behaviour explanation rather than an environmental challenge
- stopped before linking the challenge to dietary intake
These errors are avoidable.
Students need to write more precisely.
What future Health and Human Development students should learn from 2025
The 2025 VCE Health and Human Development exam shows that nutrition preparation should focus on comparison and specificity.
Students should practise:
- comparing food selection models directly
- using whereas or compared with for differences
- describing guides as showing proportions, not exact amounts
- writing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in full
- identifying environmental challenges clearly
- linking environmental challenges to food access, storage or preparation
- naming specific nutrients and food types
- avoiding vague phrases such as “healthy eating”
- explaining how challenges make nutritional change harder
- building cause-and-effect chains from environment to dietary outcome
These skills make nutrition answers stronger.
In Health and Human Development, food questions reward precise dietary language.
How ATAR STAR teaches nutrition in Health and Human Development
At ATAR STAR, nutrition is taught through applied exam language.
Students learn to compare food selection models accurately, use culturally respectful terminology, and describe dietary change using specific nutrients, food types and environmental pathways. They practise writing concise answers that show how environmental factors influence food access, preparation and consumption.
The 2025 Examination Report confirms why this matters. High-scoring students did not simply write about healthy eating.
They described nutritional change precisely.